Imposed cap restrictions...whatever you want to call it. You know what's up with your owners, and a couple of cap anchors (Bieksa, Stoner).
Value of: Fowler to MTL
- Thread starter Incetardis
- Start date
Imposed cap restrictions...whatever you want to call it. You know what's up with your owners, and a couple of cap anchors (Bieksa, Stoner).
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Clearly no bitterness.
That's why you came to a thread that has nothing to do with Buffalo, involving a player that you've asked about numerous times, and been turned down. Anaheim isn't in cap hell. Their cap situation is fine.
And like I said, says you. I wouldn't want to do a Fowler/Tatar swap. You can say that I haven't come to grips with reality, but since you can't prove you're right, and you're talking about a player you know very little about, maybe it's best we both move on.
I don't know, Tim has made some pretty stupid trades too.
We aren't going to get anywhere with the fowler vs lando thing. If fowler is being valued as a borderline top pairing guy like he should be, he's pretty close to landoskog.
Again, no evidence that ANA wanted just 8th OA. You're making that all up my friend.
Clearly we value Fowler differently. As someone who has actually watched him play, his value is right around Landeskog (slightly lower for the reasons listed before i.e. contract and age). Sergachev is 18 years old. He may end up being better then Fowler (I don't see it - Sergachev projects to be a #2D and Fowler is already a #2D), but how does that help COL win now? Duchene, Iginla, Johnson, Varms... none of them are getting any younger. Unless COL lucks out, Sergachev is at least 4 years away from being of any significance to that roster. COL doesn't have the time to sit and wait for things to improve.
ANA is probably only tendering offers on Fowler in order to improve our need for more reliable scoring. Fowler isn't being moved just so we can keep Lindholm and Vatanen. That's easily achievable without moving Fowler i.e. move Despres instead or even Cogs. It's pretty obvious that you don't know what you're on about and are merely guessing based on limited facts.
You're right. Fowler isn't even worth E Kane right now. We'll probably trade him to BUF for a puck signed by Eichel. 
Clearly no bitterness.
Anaheim isn't in cap hell. Their cap situation is fine.
And like I said, says you. I wouldn't want to do a Fowler/Tatar swap. You can say that I haven't come to grips with reality, but since you can't prove you're right, and you're talking about a player you know very little about, maybe it's best we both move on.
Go sell that snake oil somewhere else. Your whole fanbase watched BM twiddle his fingers all day, if he even got out of bed that is. Nothing at all today for a roster in "win-now" mode but doesn't have a top-six LW to play with Getzlaf. Hell Kesler even said they need a guy to play with him. And yes, I know what Fowler is about, a pretty good PMD and an overall #2 guy. He's worth a decent amount, just not what you guys are hoping for.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
I think Landeskog's contract gives him a fair chunk of extra value. Anaheim would definitely be adding, in my opinion. Not a Theodore level piece, but not loose change.
You don't have to get silly. That's like me putting words into your mouth like, "You're right, Fowler is worth Pat Kane, hardy har har." Very productive.
I agree, and that mimics what I said. Player for player they are pretty close, with Lando's contract giving him the advantage. I'd add to fowler to get him and I indicated so, but it wouldn't be a huge add.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
You might want to look at Murray's history when it comes to free agency. He's never been a very active guy on July 1st. Perhaps you should know a little more about the team before you start trying to tell us about it.
And you think a #2 defenseman is only worth Tatar? I think you need to get a better read on trade value, because not every position is equal. Take your own advice.
lindholmie
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2015
- 1,981
- 63
If you think fowler is a number #2 then what is Landy? Fowler is only 24 years old and is signed for 4 million
Ok cool, now at that value you just stated for Fowler how is he not close to Lando? They're pretty close in age and responsibility to their teams.
Not being historically active on this day, does not mean watching multiple LW options sign elsewhere for reasonable contracts (Perron, even Staal) or that your team isn't in a big cap bind. Why be obtuse about it? It's all over your own board. It's common knowledge.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Simple: If his value is closer to Landeskog, then Ennis is obviously not enough.
Can we please get the topic back to Montreal? The player that is being disputed as being worth more(Landeskog) isn't even on their roster.
It sounds like Perron wanted to be in St. Louis, and Staal is simply declining too rapidly for me to want him on the team. I'll pass on Eric Staal's 39 points as the guy who will play on Kesler's wing. The other contracts thrown around were just ridiculous, and are examples of why Murray isn't very active the day of Free Agency.
You think coming in here and venting your bitterness towards our fan base because we don't think Fowler for Ennis + is a good deal = very productive.
I just don't see the player we need being offered by MTL. They need scoring as much as we do. Whilst Fowler would probably be a perfect fit, there isn't a deal that makes sense or that fulfills our needs and doesn't cripple MTL upfront.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
I don't see it either, but that is the topic of this thread.
I refuse to see it devolve into a bunch of bickering again, when one side isn't even part of the proposal. And it definitely isn't fair to Montreal fans who might want to discuss this.
Last edited:
StartTheShow
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2013
- 320
- 7
Again, no evidence that ANA wanted just 8th OA. You're making that all up my friend.
Clearly we value Fowler differently. As someone who has actually watched him play, his value is right around Landeskog (slightly lower for the reasons listed before i.e. contract and age). Sergachev is 18 years old. He may end up being better then Fowler (I don't see it - Sergachev projects to be a #2D and Fowler is already a #2D), but how does that help COL win now? Duchene, Iginla, Johnson, Varms... none of them are getting any younger. Unless COL lucks out, Sergachev is at least 4 years away from being of any significance to that roster. COL doesn't have the time to sit and wait for things to improve.
ANA is probably only tendering offers on Fowler in order to improve our need for more reliable scoring. Fowler isn't being moved just so we can keep Lindholm and Vatanen. That's easily achievable without moving Fowler i.e. move Despres instead or even Cogs. It's pretty obvious that you don't know what you're on about and are merely guessing based on limited facts.
Part of the reason Anaheim is looking to move Fowler is because of their ability to protect only 3 defense men from expansion- this is known. You must have a limited understanding of the situation because Bieksa as of right now has to be one of those 3 because of his no movement clause. Out of Fowler, Vatanen and Lindholm as of right now they could only protect 2 of them. Lindholm is the best of the 3 and Vatanen has a better contract then Fowler.
There were multiple reports Anaheim was looking at both Buffalo and Montreal as suitors wanting their first round pick in the draft. Again it has more value to Anaheim because its something they can retain through expansion. They are also multiple reports Buffalo is still trying to get a deal done involving next years 1st round draft pick and other assets. Obviously I don't have first hand information about the situation just as I'm sure no one on these message boards does but where there is smoke there's fire.
Your Landeskog valuation is laughable. His contract is more attractive, has a longer term, he is #1 winger material and has the right character to be a long time captain in the league. For a #2 defense man at best, on a good two year deal heading into ufa. He is 100% closer to Tatar value then Landeskog..
Anyone trying to get Larsson value for him is comparing a deal some on this board argued is one of the worst 1 for 1 deals in history.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Players Signed
Only 14 players signed leaving roughly $15.7M for 9 including a goalie. Given that the average salary is a bit north of $3M, Anaheim is looking at an NHL 23 player roster with a large number of entry of well below average players. Not cap hell but far from ideal.
Clearly no bitterness.
Anaheim isn't in cap hell. Their cap situation is fine.
And like I said, says you. I wouldn't want to do a Fowler/Tatar swap. You can say that I haven't come to grips with reality, but since you can't prove you're right, and you're talking about a player you know very little about, maybe it's best we both move on.
Only 14 players signed leaving roughly $15.7M for 9 including a goalie. Given that the average salary is a bit north of $3M, Anaheim is looking at an NHL 23 player roster with a large number of entry of well below average players. Not cap hell but far from ideal.
You do realise that the expansion draft is next year, right? Clearly you don't have a very good understanding of the situation, but there is no rush to move a guy who needs protection next year and can be moved between now and then. Clueless
Attempts have also been made to retract Bieksa's NTC. They have failed, but i think it's likely Bieksa will be bought out if he is unwilling to waive i.e. he's not going to be a problem. I know my team more then you. Who would have guessed?
Yes, those assets may have been considered, but you're wrong in assuming that (A) there was only a single pick being discussed as the return (if BUF and MTL wanted to move a single pick, their next picks after 8th and 9th OA respectively were 2nd rounders. You really think Fowler is worth just a 2nd rounder? He's not. It's far more likely that a player + pick was being discussed and the point of contention was ANA wanting the 2016 1st as opposed to 2 x 2nds or a 2017 1st) and (B) that ANA is going to take a huge hit in value just to get an asset that doesn't need protecting in the expansion. You may find this hard to believe, but Fowler is our most relied upon D-man. BM knows that. So I highly doubt he'd move him out for less then an overpayment. We're a win now team and we need assets that can play and contribute. If we're giving up Fowler, then the assets coming back are going to have to be significant because he's significant to our team.
Yes, there is lots of smoke with BUF, COL, EDM, DAL, DET all seemingly interested. So with 5 teams going after 2 assets in Fowler and Shattenkirk, why would we take less then fair value even for Fowler? Because of expansion? See above for details on that.
So you think Landeskog is worth more then a #2 D-man on a cheap contract for the next 2 years. So he's worth what exactly? A #1D?
Landeskog is good, but he's no Ovechkin or Benn. Most of the positives you listed are contract based. I said Landeskog as the slight edge in value on Fowler because of that, but, in terms of on ice contribution, Fowler and Landeskog are very close. In fact, I'd give Fowler the edge given the position he plays and the fact that Landeskog hasn't hit 30 goals yet. Such a trade could be beneficial for both.
It happened though, so why rule it out as a possibility? At the very least, it is evidence that shows the value of D-men is sky high. Something you seem to be disputing.
StartTheShow
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2013
- 320
- 7
You do realise that the expansion draft is next year, right? Clearly you don't have a very good understanding of the situation, but there is no rush to move a guy who needs protection next year and can be moved between now and then. Clueless
Attempts have also been made to retract Bieksa's NTC. They have failed, but i think it's likely Bieksa will be bought out if he is unwilling to waive i.e. he's not going to be a problem. I know my team more then you. Who would have guessed?
- If they want to get the best return for Fowler they need to do it while there are two years left on his contract and not when they are under the gun to move him or lose him. #Shakehead. It might be why they are trying to move him right now #logic.
- #because I'm an Anaheim fan noone else knows my team better than me
My bet is Montreal's 9th overall pick and Hudon or Fucale would've got the deal done
- The Landeskog debate with you at this point is sad.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to move him! especially for as low a return as you suggested, something we could probably get next year with him on a 1 year deal. Did you not read the part about at least 5 teams looking to acquire 2 assets. Supply and demand. 
No, because I'm a knowledgable Duck fan and you're clueless mate.
So you think Hudon/Fucale + 9th OA gets you a #2 D-man?
When you're that far out on valuation, it's no wonder we don't see eye-to-eye on the Landeskog deal. Fowler is worth way more then a nothing prospect and a whole bunch of maybe. That package doesn't get you Tatar either btw.
StartTheShow
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2013
- 320
- 7
I think being a Ducks fan is the reason you're over valuing Anaheim's #3 dman.
He's a poor mans # 2 at best.
Sergachev > Fowler.
Kraken Jokes
Registered User
- May 28, 2010
- 3,991
- 1,512
I don't see Montreal and Anaheim making this sort of deal work, not without Anaheim taking extra steps to fill their need for scoring wingers. Montreal has the same need.
